Microsoft hosts a security summit but no press, public allowed
theregister.com
theregister.com
Sometimes the message you need your 'partners' to receive is: "Yes, we fucked up 3 times, but over the same period you lot fucked up 100 times so we're going to severely curtail what you can do, if you don't like it tough"
And if you're Linus Torvalds you can just say that in public.
But if you're a business with a PR department and lawyers, and some of these partners are actually important to your business and you want to maintain a good relationship with them?
Then it's probably a lot easier for you to deliver the message clearly and frankly if you do it behind closed doors.
The mainstream media outlets dont really change hands often. The vast majority of people are already subject to the whims and biases of said media organisations. More information being available is unlikely to change that. We already can't parse the amount of information available today.
The least-informed people, today, are not the ones who shun mainstream media.
By contrast, most people who talk about non-MSM outlets are referring to places that publish actual fiction, YouTube channels, or thinly veiled propaganda outlets.
No, it's not. Education is though.
> We already can't parse the amount of information available today.
You're right, we can't. But more ignorance is hardly the solution I'd opt for.
(And realistically for pretty much everyone, zero prospects of grasping even 90% of what’s currently available)
The point GP made that it seems most people have missed, is that we need to recognize that we almost always lack the necessary context and expertise to understand something. One potential response to that realization is more ignorance, yes, I suppose. Another might be looking for people with the necessary expertise to understand something and get their input on it.
So it doesn’t make a difference?
(Assuming there are way more potential inputs than you have lifespan to receive, which is already the case)
And I’m pretty sure it’s the case for everyone, since even if someone is 10x smarter than Einstein, they will still only have 24 hours a day. And their neurons have a chemical upper limit in processing speed.
Who would be educated? Everyone, I would hope.
Whose education would they be given? As in, what education plan? I would say one devised by teachers and educational experts, the goal of which (in the context of this discussion) would be to educate children on things like critical thinking, media literacy, recognizing propaganda, etc.
We’ve tried that. We’re probably in the era with the greatest individual access to information in human history. It’s mostly void screaming and sound bite selecting. We should still fight for free information. But that doesn’t mean we should be forced to give up the benefits of privacy and confidential dealings.
I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest these are related. It's always been like this. Just because it's easier to see that now doesn't mean we should ignore the benefits this era brought.
> But that doesn’t mean we should be forced to give up the benefits of privacy and confidential dealings.
I don't think anyone suggested this.
> We’ve tried that.
So we keep trying? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
The short version I often use about that rule: "you can quote, but you can not attribute". It's a relatively common practice among certain technology conferences. At least in the UK.
It sounds like they’re having a summit with partners and… those are typically never open to the public, so um?
Are we going to start renaming meetings to “conferences” and then complaining they’re all closed-doors?
El Reg is a clickbait rag, but this isn’t fun snark like they often do - it’s just dumb.
Just like you never, ever see a meeting/phone call between Biden and Xi livestreamed on YouTube in full detail. They may give you a summary but that's it.
I don't see there is anything worth reporting about.
In what world this is not worth reporting?
On your anecdote, if Biden and Xi decided to make a week-long secret meeting somewhere, the press would be all over it too.
Best thing I think can reasonably be asked is a streamed press conferences afterwards.
That is completely true, it doesn't have to be then.
But surely "the summit where they are literally working out the future of windows security" is the best place to report on the future of Windows security? Why do I get the impression you think that makes it inferior?
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-cloud/resources/se...
Part of trust building is knowing when to be quiet. A friend who tweets everything I tell them isn’t trusted.
Unless that was the intent of the meeting.